No? I don't know what you listen to but room modes are significant up to about 250Hz in a typical room and there's little music that does not extend below that. Let's get this out of this thread, btw, as it has nothing, in specific, to do with the 8801. (And mine arrives tomorrow!)

So Kal, what are your expectations for the AV8801? A definite step-up from the AV7005?

I have a dislike for proprietary interfaces as they severely limit the user's options. So, while DenonLink and similar may be effective, you pay for that in other ways. What I would love to see is a universal implementation of ARC (audio rate control) which is an option in recent versions of HDMI and available to all licensees and which will significantly reduce timing inaccuracies in this ubiquitous interface. So far, the only open implementation I know of is in the Ayre DX-5 but what can you connect it to? Sony's HATS and Pioneers PQLS are proprietary versions. Sigh.

I have a dislike for proprietary interfaces as they severely limit the user's options. So, while DenonLink and similar may be effective, you pay for that in other ways. What I would love to see is a universal implementation of ARC (audio rate control) which is an option in recent versions of HDMI and available to all licensees and which will significantly reduce timing inaccuracies in this ubiquitous interface. So far, the only open implementation I know of is in the Ayre DX-5 but what can you connect it to? Sony's HATS and Pioneers PQLS are proprietary versions. Sigh.

Definitely better build quality on the 8801 over the 4520. But will that equate to better SQ?
Bill

As most of the digital front-end is pretty much the same on both units, it's the differences in the power supplies and the analog output stages (like Marantz HDAM vs Denon DDSC) that will impart distinctive sound characteristics to each unit. This reminds me of a conversation I had at an audio show with the main designer of the Simaudio Moon CD player that uses the ESS Sabre32 Reference DACs; he mentioned that you can choose the best DAC for your design but you can still mess up the implementation by poorly designing the analog output stages.

Yea...well given copper is currently trading at $3.52 a pound it better be a lot of copper and make it sound miraculous

I don't want to burst your bubble but the description states that the chassis is composed of COPPER PLATED STEEL, as is electroplated, you know a few microns thick... OK maybe a few thousands of a meter thick.

It is illogical to acknowledge that room correction is needed for one mode of listening (headphones excluded) and not for another in the same room.
As for those who deny the value of room correction entirely, their consistency is admirable but misled.

Which kinda makes it odd that the magazine that you write for, drapes Class A+ awards on products that do not incorporate any form of room correction, no?

The thing is with room treatment and good positioning of speakers vis a vis the listening position, you can mitigate the room effects significantly so as not to incur the penalties of Room EQ.

And that is why music can sound better (stereo or multichannel) without any form of DSP EQ applied because using EQ creates additional artefacts of its own.

I still use EQ particularly SubEQ in movies because I find that with movies, the pros outweigh the cons when there's a lot of low level frequencies that can only be contained using more elaborate bass treatments but that creates additional problems of its own.

Which kinda makes it odd that the magazine that you write for, drapes Class A+ awards on products that do not incorporate any form of room correction, no?

I don't believe that's a fair assessment. The vast majority of stereo preamplifiers and amplifiers that receive those class A+ distinctions are analog in nature and offer no form of bundled digital room correction. There are a few rare exceptions in the market like some digitally controlled class D integrated amplifiers from makers such as Lyngdorf Audio, Holm Acoustics, Phase Technology, Tact Audio, etc. that offer such capabilities but if Stereophile hasn't reviewed them yet, then they can't possibly have the opportunity to be considered for an award.

Actually I believe Kal has reviewed some stereo DSP/RoomEQ systems before in Stereophile.
But if RoomEQ is so important and none of the Class A+ gear have them, are those Class A+ systems then unusable?

Regardless of all of your attempts to divert/spin the topic, room EQ is as vital for music as it is for movies. Same room, same requirements.

Regardless of all of your attempts to divert/spin the topic, room EQ is as vital for music as it is for movies. Same room, same requirements.

Generally agreed.

I sold both my Classe SSP 800 and CP 800 devices - despite their superb "quality", the in room performance for me was lacking without room correction and bass management.

If you have the freedom to design a purpose built room, with the precise room treatments, size, and positioning required, then products like the Classe would likely shine superior even when compared to room correction solutions i(a well-designed, though not "top their" processor).. But since almost no one has that kind of room, then the benefits of well-implemented room correction can outweigh the superior architecture of a non-room correcting processor when it comes down to plopping our ever-increasing buttock's in the chair to simply listen...in fact I'd argue there is a need for it (not our ever increase buttocks size, but room correction)

The thing is with room treatment and good positioning of speakers vis a vis the listening position, you can mitigate the room effects significantly so as not to incur the penalties of Room EQ.
And that is why music can sound better (stereo or multichannel) without any form of DSP EQ applied because using EQ creates additional artefacts of its own.
I still use EQ particularly SubEQ in movies because I find that with movies, the pros outweigh the cons when there's a lot of low level frequencies that can only be contained using more elaborate bass treatments but that creates additional problems of its own.

I completely agree. If people did pay more attention to managing their room's acoustics, a priori, there would be little need for EQ except in the bass. However, if one is crossing over to the subs below 100Hz, it is likely that all the channels need some LF EQ anyway.

Generally agreed.
I sold both my Classe SSP 800 and CP 800 devices - despite their superb "quality", the in room performance for me was lacking without room correction and bass management.
If you have the freedom to design a purpose built room, with the precise room treatments, size, and positioning required, then products like the Classe would likely shine superior even when compared to room correction solutions i(a well-designed, though not "top their" processor).. But since almost no one has that kind of room, then the benefits of well-implemented room correction can outweigh the superior architecture of a non-room correcting processor when it comes down to plopping our ever-increasing buttock's in the chair to simply listen...in fact I'd argue there is a need for it (not our ever increase buttocks size, but room correction)